Task force punts

Published: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 at 08:00 AM.

Nor should it. It’s good to see the task force report (tinyurl.com/d9xobrp) affirms that “all persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.”

The panel did make some modest recommendations, such as restricting neighborhood watch volunteers to observing and reporting, not pursuing and confronting. It also recommended the Legislature reconsider giving shooters immunity from being detained or arrested during an investigation, an obvious response to how Sanford police initially treated Zimmerman.

The task force identified one major problem with the law when it recommended that law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judiciary “increase training and education regarding self-defense laws to ensure uniform and fair application.” But those groups need guidance from legislators to eliminate ambiguity in the law that contributes to its inconsistent application.

Basically, the task force punted.

That doesn’t mean the Legislature should do so also. Failure to strengthen the statute will over time weaken it, as the public loses confidence in a law that is enforced so incongruously. Legislators must eliminate the gray area between criminal and victim.

The governor-appointed task force on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has concluded its work — and not surprisingly, it declined to fire much ammo.

That’s just as well. Fine-tuning the law should be up to the Legislature, judges and prosecutors.

Gov. Rick Scott formed the committee earlier this year in the wake of public outrage over the Feb. 26 Trayvon Martin shooting. George Zimmerman, a member of a neighborhood watch in Sanford, is charged with killing the unarmed teenager after a confrontation in a gated community. Sanford police initially went 45 days without arresting Zimmerman because of the Stand Your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force if he believes his is facing a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

However, Zimmerman’s attorneys have said they don’t plan to invoke the law, arguing they will rely on a traditional claim of self-defense.

Regardless, the case drew national attention to Florida’s and other states’ Stand Your Ground statutes and how they are applied. Critics argue they give people a license to kill. Media investigations of various cases indicated the law has been applied inconsistently. It was designed to ensure a law-abiding citizen would not be required to retreat in the face of a criminal confrontation in a public area — think of a person with a concealed carry permit “standing his ground” on a city street, drawing his firearm and defending himself from a mugger.

Instead, many people who instigated confrontations invoked Stand Your Ground after things escalated. Some left a fight and returned armed to finish it. A few victims were shot in the back attempting to escape. Gang members have claimed Stand Your Ground when battling other gangs. All are cases that lawmakers never envisioned when they passed Stand Your Ground in 2005.

The governor’s task force held public hearings around the state soliciting comments from residents and law enforcement personnel. Given the fact that the 19-member panel was packed with supporters, though, it was a fait accompli that it would never do what the harshest critics desired: recommend repealing the law.

Nor should it. It’s good to see the task force report (tinyurl.com/d9xobrp) affirms that “all persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.”

The panel did make some modest recommendations, such as restricting neighborhood watch volunteers to observing and reporting, not pursuing and confronting. It also recommended the Legislature reconsider giving shooters immunity from being detained or arrested during an investigation, an obvious response to how Sanford police initially treated Zimmerman.

The task force identified one major problem with the law when it recommended that law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judiciary “increase training and education regarding self-defense laws to ensure uniform and fair application.” But those groups need guidance from legislators to eliminate ambiguity in the law that contributes to its inconsistent application.

Basically, the task force punted.

That doesn’t mean the Legislature should do so also. Failure to strengthen the statute will over time weaken it, as the public loses confidence in a law that is enforced so incongruously. Legislators must eliminate the gray area between criminal and victim.